To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

CJ
• .--l
00
ON
C"l -.........
.--l 00
I
~'"
1
Volume 8, Issue 3
July/August 2011
Inside this Issue >
Bul/coming v. New Mexico
Wisconsin Supremes Affirm Conviction With no Witnesses
Jackass Star Dies·Ebert "too quick to Tweet".
American Optometric Association Resolution on HGN
Nesbitt v. State
Whitley v. State
Pryor v. State
Harney v. State
Man arrested for drunk driving mobility scooter
Driver alcohol Detection System for Safety
Drunk Driving: Eve~ a Trace is Dangerous on the Road
Long Time
J.D.B v. North Carolina
Davis v. U.S.) No. 09-11328
Decided June 16, 2011
In Davis v. U.s., during a routine traffic stop, the defendant, a pas­senger
in the vehicle was arrested for giving a false name. After
Davis was arrested, law enforcement searched the vehicle and
found Davis' handgun. He was then charged with possession of a
firearm after former conviction of a felony.
Davis recognized the search of the vehicle was in compliance with
the binding precedent of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
However, he still raised a Fourth Amendment challenge. Davis
was subsequently convicted. He then appealed.
During the pendency of his appeal, the Court decided Arizona v.
Gant, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008). In that case, the Court held a search is
constitutional if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the ve­hicle
during the search, or the police have reason to believe the
vehicle contains "evidence relevant to the crime of arrest". In ap­plying
the Gant analysis to Davis' situation, the Court held Davis'
arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, declined to suppress
the revolver and affirmed his conviction.
Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the convic­tion,
holding that searches conducted in objectively reasonable
reliance on binding precedent are not subject to the exclusionary
rule.
This material was prepared for the Highway Safety Office in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, and/or Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

CJ
• .--l
00
ON
C"l -.........
.--l 00
I
~'"
1
Volume 8, Issue 3
July/August 2011
Inside this Issue >
Bul/coming v. New Mexico
Wisconsin Supremes Affirm Conviction With no Witnesses
Jackass Star Dies·Ebert "too quick to Tweet".
American Optometric Association Resolution on HGN
Nesbitt v. State
Whitley v. State
Pryor v. State
Harney v. State
Man arrested for drunk driving mobility scooter
Driver alcohol Detection System for Safety
Drunk Driving: Eve~ a Trace is Dangerous on the Road
Long Time
J.D.B v. North Carolina
Davis v. U.S.) No. 09-11328
Decided June 16, 2011
In Davis v. U.s., during a routine traffic stop, the defendant, a pas­senger
in the vehicle was arrested for giving a false name. After
Davis was arrested, law enforcement searched the vehicle and
found Davis' handgun. He was then charged with possession of a
firearm after former conviction of a felony.
Davis recognized the search of the vehicle was in compliance with
the binding precedent of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
However, he still raised a Fourth Amendment challenge. Davis
was subsequently convicted. He then appealed.
During the pendency of his appeal, the Court decided Arizona v.
Gant, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008). In that case, the Court held a search is
constitutional if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the ve­hicle
during the search, or the police have reason to believe the
vehicle contains "evidence relevant to the crime of arrest". In ap­plying
the Gant analysis to Davis' situation, the Court held Davis'
arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, declined to suppress
the revolver and affirmed his conviction.
Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the convic­tion,
holding that searches conducted in objectively reasonable
reliance on binding precedent are not subject to the exclusionary
rule.
This material was prepared for the Highway Safety Office in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, and/or Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.